วีดีโอ

10:15 it's interesting that Dan disagrees here where there is nothing in the specific context of Deuteronomy 30 that says that unbelievers cannot obey God in this respect. It's only presupposing Total Depravity that would cause you to conclude this. That's fine but it means we can't have a face value conversation about Deuteronomy 30.

I am Not so sure that the GARBC's in the Midwest... necessarily had Arminian leanings or tendencies... but I DO agree many of the sermons I heard were lacking.. in really defining.. irresistible grace // limited atonement // and unconditional election.../and so I learned a lot about what these entailed on my own.. by careful bible study... I was a Calvinist in my theology... before I even knew what the 5 points of Calvinism were... the GARBC DID preach OSAS... and so I believe THAT falls into the category of perseverance of the saints.. I think what was REALLY lacking in the messages I heard... was exactly HOW Sovereign God was in one's life.... we read about How He knows how many hairs are on one's head... and how.. not one blade of grass falls but that God allows it.. but.. this was Not really studied in great depth.. to explain...WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO ME...?.. I also believe that they believed somewhat in the total depravity of man... yet this also was NEVER explained in depth.. questions should have been answered such as.. Can sinful man find God on his own?.. Can sinful man accept God.. on his own...? what is the exact meaning of Ephesians 1:4-5 ..? "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will," what did Peter mean in 1 Peter 1:2...? “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.” whom did Peter consider to be the "Elect"... and why?... looking at John 3:16... we Must also consider this verse from the Calvinistic viewpoint... "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." we MUST understand ... that this "whosoever"... refers to the "whosoever that are predestined by God to NOT PERISH"... most find this as an open invitation to the whole world.. to become saved... but it is NOT the ONLY ones who will be saved are ones who have already been predetermined by God to be saved... they are the ONLY ones... who will find the Holy Spirit's call unto God as irresistible...

Hi Dan! I apologize if my comment about me finding Colton’s interpretation “insane” was offensive or hurtful. I simply meant that - to me - his case was absurd in a non-personal sense. Colton is a super bright guy with a massive, systematic tradition behind him and he does good work. I believe that you interpreted my comment as me calling Colton foolish, but that was not what I intended. I was calling his position irrational; that is, according to my own seemings it would be crazy. And yes, I could be wrong. Anyhow, you are always incredibly nice and I know that you avoid overly assertive, fiery language and understandably so. So again, apologies for my comment. And if you have communication with Colton, could you relay this apology and my intentions to him? Just wanted to clear my conscience. God bless.

I think we need to hold people a little more accountable for logical internal contradictions, albeit lovingly.

Dan you have a really bad echo on your mic.

I dont recognise Pat's "ancestral sin" view, it seems a lot more lighter than the orthodoxy view. Pat completely lost me in his view, and its why i take umbridge with provisionists... Dan on the other hand was solid.

Looking forward to watching!

I disagree with Pat that humans apart from faith in God can do truly good things or things that are pleasing to God (especially to merit salvation although I don't know if that's what Pat would say). However, I don't think that means that a person cannot admit that all of their supposed good deeds were actually sinful and that they are spiritually bankrupt and in need of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. External revelation by the Holy Spirit through the Word and creation are sufficient to believe and be saved.

Thank you for the great conversation!

This is where you guys get it wrong - if you argue the predestination is not for your salvation but only sanctification, then when does your salvation occur?

chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father (1 Pet. 1:2)

Take it in love, but I really think that you guys should do recorded and scripted videos. It will improve a lot the quality of the video

On the way Arminianism is pronounced is going to be something you’d have an issue with me then. I am an Arminian but sometimes mispronounce it. Maybe more than I think I do. But hey, you gonna think negative all I got to say brother is it’s a little silly.

I believe in *ORCHIDS:* _Original sin brings the sin nature and curse._ _Redemptive grace comes before all the efforts of man._ _Cross of Christ is provision for the sins of all humanity._ _Heart trust in Jesus' Work is the way to be saved._ _Invalidated salvation through apostasy is possible._ _Damnation awaits those outside of Christ._ _Salvation was predestined by God's foreknowledge._

nice anime thumbnail dweebs

14:12 Am important thing to add of the Jewish perspective is that the were certain they were the only children of God and that the gentiles were not even invited to the kingdom. Paul and Jesus also dealt heavily with that error, especially here in Romans 9.

Just to think....that God loves us so much to put forth plans to draw us to Him.

Loved it, great illustrations.

Does the distinction “sufficient for all” but only “efficient for all believers” help to clarify what you(Dan) are trying to describe in the 1:15:00 range? Sufficient to be imputed to all, though conditioned upon belief to receive imputation/intercession/justification?

Megan Phelps Roper isn't the only one who has rejected Christianity based on a false understanding of the whole sovereignty question, whether from Romans 9 or elsewhere. For if God is omnipotent in the sense that he causes or determines everything, “then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?” (Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years [rev. ed.; Secaucus, N.J.; Citadel Press, 1956], p. 27)

This has been by far one of the best soteriology discussions i have come across by far. I myself came to faith as a hyper-calvinist and since then been looking for something more biblical. I would say i'm still in the Amyraldian camp as i still have remnants of Calvinist soteriology. I think hypothetical universalism is very much a good response for the atonement. I kean more towards Polhill's view than that of Ussher. I am very much sympathetic to the Arminian view held by Dan Chapa. Ive really enjoyed this discussion though.

Bob has a point. th-cam.com/video/A4nRXbcBcGE/w-d-xo.html

The Calvinists are half right. Paul seems to be using these OT references to speak to individual salvation. Even though the original texts aren’t in that vein. So they have a leg up on traditional Arminian or Provisionist, or other non-Calvinist positions in this passage. But what the Calvinists get wrong is that even though Paul is using these quotes to talk about individual election, he’s doing it sarcastically. And the reason why is because he’s countering the unbelieving Jews used these quotes all the time to talk about individualistic concepts and they were wrong to do so. Paul is now using them but he’s reversing the roles in each one in order to show how a he Jews’ use of them were.

Human understanding can never get you to the knowledge of God. If you are the beginning and the end, you have already seen the end, and the middle! Jesus said, "As my Father knows me even so know I The Father." And "There is nothing hidden from God." Time and Eternity, what God has purposed in Eternity must need be fulfilled in time. The Lamb slain before the world must need endure the cross. The Elect before the world must need believe and be baptized.

38:11 Leighton does not use "mental assent" to define "faith". He defines it as loyalty.

4:25 The video was published on Sunday, which isn't the Sabbath, but maybe you guys recorded it on a Saturday

Instead of saying “partial regeneration,” why don’t we just say “fertilization” and “gestation” ? I’m not saying we need to use these terms, but if we believe that salvation is a new birth, there’s a process that leads to birth (fertilization, conception, gestation). And this process can be aborted, result in miscarriage, or a still birth. Therefore, the “grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men” (Titus 2:11), yet not all are saved.

Greetings brothers, I would appreciate it if you put subtitles on the video

This has got to be one of the best conversations on youtube, hands down. Loved it. Soooooo good.

It is always difficult for us, I think, to be told to believe two things that seem to contradict, without an intense effort to somehow reconcile them. For example, if we are told the following, it is not our normal nature to simply accept a seeming paradox: 1. God maximally loves all creation equally. 2. Not all creation seems to be equally graced.

Austin is awesome, and his book is too! Buy it!!

Thanks for engaging with my comments Dan! Enjoyed the stream! I had to drop out towards the end to take care of my children but I enjoyed the conversation!

@TheOverlapLifewithTimBarber Thank-you for all your responses below! There is much to learn from you on thinking through these passages. At the very least, it shows that Arminians who are not Open Theist have a lot to think about or at least we need to make our ideas more accessible without mudding the waters or mixing up ideas. In some sense I thought it might be unfair to talk about the debate, when your interlocuter was not an Arminian. But I figured if I can learn something or have a chance to think about the SEA position more, then perhaps it would be of benefit. Not to mention, I don't think you are shy to others discussing your position. Part of the difficulty about having this conversation (the SEA video), in my opinion, is the wide variety of Arminian positions out there. I think your definition was a bit narrow, but others have used the same definition. Personally, I define Arminianism more broadly than SEA, and I sometimes wonder if Arminianism is as hard to demarcate as Panentheism (I'm thinking of Mullins Paper). Unfortunately, because of all this, I found it was all too easy for us to slip into different views on God, and trying to talk about these views along with Arminianism, the debate, scripture and application..... well it was challenging--- I'll let the viewers decide if we did a good enough job. I've read so much, and I almost always lack the skills to keep much of it clear- so I do need to be corrected often. I commend all your prep and your dialogue with White; I'm going to have to purchase your book, and everyone else should do that too: theoverlap.life/ . Again, thank-you for your clarifications, critiques, and words. As a side note, I tend to lean more towards a neo-classical view of God. I think Mullins use of Fiocco's definition of time seems right. But I still wonder about God's knowledge of the future. I lean towards molinism, as I'm not sure David P. Hunt has satisfied my concerns with his response to Hasker and others regarding God's providence. If you're on x, you can find me at: AArminianism --- I tend to keep my conversations more based on Arminius himself, focusing more on the historicity of his life and his theology.

1:58:50 -- thank you all for taking the time to look through this! Forgive the forcefulness in my answers below - if it would be easier, I can come on and discuss this with you more at length. But I hope I've clarified some of what you hoped I would clarify. Love you all as brothers and so grateful for your work advancing God's Kingdom, in whatever ways we might disagree. :)

1:54:00 -- yes, I like the Boydian framing a lot. I certainly borrowed from it. Let me state unequivocally - God's victory over sin, death, and evil was secured in Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection. And it will be fully implemented in the New Heavens & New Earth when all sin, death, and evil are judged and destroyed forever. Believe it or not, I believe it's possible to hold to SOMETHING like a divine determinism in that New Creation state. There's a sense in which I could easily believe that we will no longer sin ever again because we will be so perfectly in tune with God's Will in the new world, having made ourselves slave to Him, that we will literally be unable to desire evil anymore. We will see our Lord, and in seeing Him, will BECOME like Him - so that God, in some sense, will determine all of our desires forevermore (this may be a Compatibilist articulation) So this would mean that God is dealing with the effects of free will until He decides He doesn't want to anymore. Then those who have signed up for eternal life with Him will accept having their desires replaced with His, and those who opposed Him will be wiped from existence when God starts over, having attained the end for which His experiment was started in the first place - a family that freely chose Him and allegiance to Him without Him coercing or forcing them.

1:51:00 and onward -- "why would God want to create a world where everything's... where the world is allowed to go... where I couldn't do anything about it?" Listen - the free will theodicy exists for a reason. You hold to it, too. It says that the potential for evil to exist was a price God had to be willing to pay in order to have a creation that freely chose to love Him of its own volition, rather than being forced to like robots. God was willing to pay that price, and He did. "How God resolves the evil in the world" is by judging and destroying it, whether in this life or the next. Why posit that God in any way causes, approves of, sanctions, arranges, or brings evil to pass through a "permission-prevention" mechanism? God gets His turns in the game, and so do we. There is no good in evil, and there is no way to purpose evil IN ORDER to bring good out of it. Evil is intended to destroy the good. But God is so wise and powerful that He can CREATE good things on the other side of evil that was intended by His ENEMIES, designed to destroy and deface all that's good. There is no "greater good" on the other side of a 6-year old girl getting kidnapped, brutally assaulted and then murdered. It was evil, and it was intended to destroy the good. God in no way participated in that. He HATES sin. But He will keep accurate records, and at judgment, everything will be answered for. Until then, He has "made the bed" of free will, and has to lie in it.

1:45:30 again, this is a misunderstanding of my view. I believe God knows the outcomes of possibilities as well as if they were certainties, but he doesn't know which of the possibilities obtains until it actualizes.

1:41:30 - this is a moralistic fallacy - it may be scary to you to countenance a world where God gains more knowledge of how to relate to you, but that does not mean that it is untrue. This isnt an argument. Neither is the fact that you are comforted by God having a purpose for moral evil. I think that evil is, by definition, purposeless - it exists to rob God's good creation of His good plans for it, and it exists to take the good and ordered world back into chaos and destruction rather than forward into abundant life, order, and beauty. The thief comes to steal, and kill, and destroy, but Jesus came that we might have life, and have it to the full. That God can bring life out of the actions of His enemies is a testament to His brilliance and power. People say all the time that things happen for a reason - yes, sometimes the reason is that you have aligned yourself with the Creator of thr universe and there are some beings that despise you for it and want to see you ruined. That wasn't God's work.

1:37:00 this goes against the language of decree and muddies the waters unnecessarily. God doesnt need to decree to cooperate and allow things. Thats just extrabiblical language at work

1:27:00 - excuse me, no there are not verses that straightforwardly say God knows the future. 😅 Thats why there is a debate!

1:24:00 the burden of proof was indeed on me, but don't presume that you're correct until proven otherwise in so doing. I need to make a case that God doesn't know everything eith certainty. And i only need one instance. You need to advance a positive case for God knowing every instance. :)

1:22:00 - to invoke authors here is absurd because an author is literally determining by authorship the actions and realities of everything that transpires on the page. Its deterministic by its definition.

1:17:00 this discussion about a linebacker tackling you is the distinction between will and power - a will is the ability to choose a course of action, and power is the ability to bring that course of action to pass

Eric Decker was a Broncos receiver. Roger Olson was an open theist. 😅

1:10:00 - I'm not being too narrow. All 3 views affirm that the future is certain and completely known without variation. That's an enormous claim they all have in common. They differ in terms of mechanistic explanations of how this could be, and then the downstream effects of those beliefs have massive impacts as the waves go out from the quake. But they are all the same claim at root, and it's that claim I think goes contrary to the Scriptures.

The reason to reject appeals to logical moments is that it posits God believes contradictory claims as simultaneously true, i.e. God is schizophrenic

1:07:00 this entire Billy Joel thought experiment episode is an anticipatory exercise based on your past knowledge and present experience. You don't know with any degree of real certainty what will transpire in the future. You anticipate based on the evidence. You can't know if Billy is going to get struck by lightning seconds before the opening chord of the song you expect him to play. You're prognosticating. God does this too, with infinite wisdom. Again we see it straightforwardly in Scripture that he thought Israel would turn to Him after all His overtures of love - He thought they would do it! - and yet they didn't, and instead were like a faithless wife.

Throughout the video, you're borrowing A theory language to try and describe B Theory entailments, which are mutually exclusive. I find this troubling.

54:30 - because the possibility of disobeying a command or succumbing to a temptation continues throughout the length of a test, and his faith being strong at the bottom of the hill isn't the same as his faith carrying through when the rubber hits the road. We have all had that experience.

52:30 - I don't believe that - I believe God knows the possibilities well enough to anticipate them as if they were certainties, but for the events in which open possibilities exist, He doesn't know with certainty which possibility will actualize. He may be making probability judgments that it's 99% likely it will go this way vs 1% that way - but if that way nevertheless happens, he is surprised and dismayed that it came about that way. Many such instances in Scripture illustrate this - including positive ones, where Jesus is genuinely and pleasantly surprised by the faith of the centurion!